As with any new technology, there is an initial period of market education.
The more complicated the technology and/or the more entrenched the current technology
and business model—the longer the period of market education. During this learning
phase it is only natural that there are gaps in knowledge and misunderstandings.
It is from these conditions that misperceptions and myths can grow and foster.
Myth 1
DVRs are the latest, greatest CCTV security technology
Reality: In addition to people perceiving digital video recorders to be latest
and best technology, many people also believe that the DVR is an all-digital networked
technology - it is not.
A DVR does have a lot of advantages compared to a VCR (video cassette recorder):
no need to change tapes, consistent image quality, and quicker search capabilities.
But you still have all those analog cables, which first of all can distort image
quality, but are also very expensive to run throughout a facility. IP-Surveillance
has all the advantages of a DVR and many more:
- Scalability
- More cost efficient infrastructure
- Remote accessibility
- Intelligence at camera level
- Lower system cost
Contrary to some popular opinion, the DVR is not an end-point solution, but rather
one milestone in the continuing development of CCTV technology. As the marketplace
assesses DVRs more carefully, it is emerging that the DVR represents outdated,
solution-in-a-box thinking. IP-Surveillance technology has quickly proven to be
superior to DVR technology. There is an enormous difference between the two technologies
and the marketplace is only just beginning to understand this critical point.
Myth 2 - IP technology is unproven. If it"s better, why aren"t
security solution providers selling more?
Reality: This myth raises some very relevant questions that have more to do with
security market structure and buying practices than with the performance and reliability
of the IP-Surveillance solution.
IP-Surveillance is a relatively new technology and many existing, powerful
players have a competing solution, the DVR. It"s only natural that these
players want to protect their investment in DVR-oriented solutions. Related to
this, a new technology and a new mind-set require building up the knowledge and
infrastructure among the integrators, consultants, and industry influencers in
order to overcome normal, status-quo thinking and procedures. How many of us remember
when we told typewriters provided all the technology required, who needs these
new-fangled word processors? Too long ago? What about cassette players or that
VCR you haven’t exchanged for a DVD just yet? Entrenched technology and entrenched
interests require time to overcome.
The fact is, the number of IP-Surveillance installs out there is growing quickly,
and the number of integrators and distributors is growing daily. It won’t be long
before the market recognizes IP-Surveillance’s superiority, and then we’ll see
a rapid increase in the installed base and infrastructure to support it.
Myth 3- IP-Surveillance cannot meet the demands of enterprise level
applications
Reality: The larger the installation, and the higher level of performance desired,
the more competitive—and impressive—the IP-Surveillance concept proves to be.
In fact, of the many advantages of IP-Surveillance outlined above, scalability
is the one that high end users often point to as the most impressive. Axis regularly
sees requests for 200 and 300 plus camera installations—our largest to date is
1,300 cameras—some of which have been in high security installations such as international
airports and prisons. This myth is an easy one to correct: IP-Surveillance has
proven that there is no problem to meeting enterprise-level demands. In fact,
we see major government and airport surveillance deals that are now specifying
IP as the preferred architecture, which was not the case just 12 months ago.
Myth 4 - Networked video image quality is not as good as analog
Reality: Good quality network cameras have the same high quality image sensors
(CCDs) and optics as analog security cameras. Furthermore, by employing video
servers, an analog specialty camera or those that are already installed can be
incorporated into an IP-Surveillance system. In comparing network and analog cameras,
we must emphasize "good" quality network cameras built for professional
use. These high quality professional network cameras should not be confused with
lower-end network or PC Webcam cameras used for "Web attraction." These
cameras cannot deliver the same capabilities as a full-function network camera.
Soon, network cameras and IP-Surveillance technology will deliver superior
image quality by means of mega-pixel resolution. Analog cameras are limited by
the 0.4 Mpixel resolution of NTSC/PAL standards.
Myth 5 - Network cameras cost more than analog cameras, making IP-Surveillance
too expensive
Reality: It"s true a network camera is more expensive than a comparable analog
camera because it includes considerably more functionality, such as digitization,
image compression and intelligence. If we analyze the total cost of the hardware
(cameras, cables, and recording), an IP-Surveillance system will usually compare
quite favorably to a DVR-based system. If we then add the installation cost component,
the advantages with the IP-Surveillance system become obvious since the IP-based
infrastructure is considerably less expensive than analog coax cabling. In addition,
systems using PTZ controls require extra cabling, something not needed with IP.
Power over Ethernet is another cost-saving feature that saves on power lines and
connects to uninterrupted power supplies at the IT center.
Myth 6 If I already have analog cameras installed, IP-Surveillance
isn’t an option because I need a DVR
Reality: Perhaps DVR providers want us to believe this, but video server technology
is riding to the rescue and smashing this myth. Leading IP-Surveillance vendors
have video servers readily available at a reasonable investment level. A video
server converts the analog video signal into a digitized video stream over the
network, basically converting any analog camera into a network camera. Most IP-Surveillance
installations today have a combination of analog cameras, networked via video
servers, and sections that are comprised completely of network cameras. An installation
with fully functioning and already paid-for analog cameras is not a barrier to
utilizing superior IP-Surveillance technology.
Myth 7 Transferring all that video data over my network will overload
it, making this an unworkable technology
Reality: If you will only have a few cameras, then an existing Fast Ethernet (100
Mbit) office network will normally meet any transmission demands. For comparison,
a typical single network camera video feed is 0.2 to 2.0 Mbps depending on compression,
size and frame rate.
For any larger deployment of network cameras and video servers, we recommend
a separate network for the video. Think of it as similar to rail transportation—once
the existing track becomes too congested, you simply build another set of tracks.
For enterprise size, your local network core would probably be running at Gigabit
Ethernet. With today"s network switches and routers, separating networks
is easy. In addition, other specific steps can be taken to ensure that IP-Surveillance
technology can be integrated into an organization"s operations and will not
tax the network.
Additionally, because of the local intelligence inside a network camera, the
camera can actually decide which frame rate to send over the network based on
events, motion, time of day, etc. So in many cases the camera will only send video
over the network if the video is worth recording, which might only be 10% of the
time. Ninety percent of the time nothing is being transferred over the network.
Myth 8
Transmitting video for security purposes over an IP network is not secure
Reality: Although primarily used as a domain for public information, the Internet
can also be used to transfer all types of sensitive information—provided the correct
security measures, such as firewalls, VPNs and password protection, are implemented.
With banks and financial institutions regularly using the Internet as a medium
for global money transactions, it has emerged as a proven medium for other secure
applications like surveillance and security monitoring. In stark contrast to this
new digital technology, analog surveillance systems have no encryption or authentication
of information whatsoever, making it extremely easy for anyone to tap into the
cables and illicitly view "secure" video transmissions, or even feed
their own false video information into the network (like in the movie Ocean"s
11). This is impossible to do with secure IP networks.
Myth 9 - IP-Surveillance is less reliable than alternative technologies;
for instance, if the network is down
Reality: When the basis for the IP networking architecture was developed in the
1960s and "70s, the ability to provide redundancy was the top requirement.
In the same way today, transmission links, application servers, storage and switches
can all have parallel layers of services and alternative routes of communications.
Storage can be consolidated to secure off-site locations, and servers can use
redundant power supplies, hot-swap RAID disks, error-correcting memory and dual
network cards. This is all up to the network designer, and although a small network
will not deploy all of the possible safety measures, choosing high-quality IT
components in the network is in any case likely to be a more reliable solution
than CCTV with VCRs or black box DVRs. And don"t forget, by using standard
server and network equipment, replacing faulty hardware takes much less time and
is less costly than with proprietary DVR solutions.
Myth 10 IP-Surveillance is still five years away
Reality: This is the biggest myth of all! Consider that the first network cameras
were introduced in 1996. Axis Communications has already installed more than 200,000
channels of this "future" solution to date, and the interest in and
orders for IP-Surveillance technology continue to mount. Whether it"s cost,
performance, reliability, or any other measure, IP-Surveillance has proven it
is a solution for today and one that will grow and improve to ensure it is a solution
for the future as well.
We have effectively disproved a number of existing myths and we"ve established
that IP-Surveillance is highly scalable, while effectively and efficiently utilizing
a company"s network capacity. It provides significant cost and performance
advantages over the DVR model that many think is the premier solution today. We"ve
also seen that IP-Surveillance is flexible, based on high-functioning and affordable
network cameras, and is highly reliable.
by Fredrik Nilsson, General Manager, Axis Communications
U.S. Inc.
